Log in/Register

Please log in or register to continue. Registration is free and requires only your email address.

Log in

Register

Emailrequired

PasswordrequiredRemember me?

Please enter your email address and click on the reset-password button. You'll receive an email shortly with a link to create a new password. If you have trouble finding this email, please check your spam folder.

Ana Palacio, a former Spanish foreign minister and former Senior Vice President of the World Bank, is a member of the Spanish Council of State, a visiting lecturer at Georgetown University, and a member of the World Economic Forum's Global Agenda Council on the United States.

This is the tipicall argument of euro us centrism mind set. The times of population importance will come soon. Consider the power of a market for more than 3/4 of the globe. Even in this stormy context Brics are (and will be in years to come) of great influence. Of course US and Eu have to takle many global problems now. But remember the genesys of them.. Thanks!

I agree. China, especially, will become a very major force as it industrializes and its per capita income converges with those of rich countries, just due to its huge population. India will also grow to dominance. Russia, Brazil, and South Africa are rather different. Their recent high growth rates were based more on extractive industry than on manufacturing, and their populations are lower.
The U.S. will not be dominant much longer. As China and India become rich, its smaller population will mean it will have less global power.

The essential thesis of this article is manifestly WRONG. US is NOT God- given to be "Global Leader", less so that it is by any measure delivering any worth, anymore. Truly it is a blessed country with its resources and proven possibilities. It has nonetheless reduced itself, by design or accident or even in the nature of things, to take this world into abyss. Rest of this world including BRICS countries have to bathe US out. How it may end up- only time will tell- International order is but ALWAYS at a crossroad.

Yes, BRICS can not work as a TEAM.They dont have coherence.But 'if their togetherness led to the formation of BRICS Bank'-why not expecting them to 'take centre stage on serious agendas'.If that happends 'BRICS can tweak the rules as time pass by'.

Yes China has amassed huge GDP since 1980s, today INIDIA has enough space to grow and has a visible Leader to lead form the front. Time is not far, BRICS can play bigger role, when BRICS bank make news and make its own space in ASEA & Africa'!

If one cross#check Global History ,no power remain for too long.Look at the change: Hitler was against Jews, and Ms Merkel was the first EU Leader to receive refuges.Twenty First century is fast paced, because of IT, and advanced technology in Logistics.Little knowledge gap can ruin the 'wealth of nation'! What USA has done over past half a century cannot be repeated for ever. So, China has replaced Japan, Germany, and is the 2nd largest economy today. Who knows, China's assertiveness can change the geopolitical scenario @a global stage! As per India, Modi 's real innigs output can be felt by 2016-2017.By then, the economy can have wider space to grow faster than ever.What Modi s doing now, only ground work.The result can come and can be felt by the global economies by 2017.

Over time, if BRICS does not stay united, or does not impact as a BLOCK, CHINA & India can impact the influence of US gradually.

BRICS was meant to be alternative type of investment portfolio. Buy a basket of Brics to diversify against over reliance on the Dow or whatever. Just because the Brics meet once a year does not make them a political thing at all - in fact they really have nothing in common at all outside the world of fund style investments.

Ana Palacio is right about the real "significance of the BRICS", which may not see a huge increase of their global GDP any time soon. A decade ago, the group's acronym triggered widespread optimism, because Brazil, China and India made extraordinary strides in lifting their citizens out of poverty. Today much of this euphoria has dissipated in the face of high unemployment and income inequalities.
Brazil saw its credit-rating downgraded to junk status recently, and it had to cut spending and raise taxes to balance the budget. Russia is already in recession, but it has the benefit of massive savings, thanks to the good fortune of selling oil and gas in the high-price years. India has a fast-growing economy, but corruption and poverty are widespread and "important reforms" are urgently needed.
China is the leader of this pack, with an economy "nearly twice that of the rest of the BRICS combined, and roughly 30 times that of South Africa." Yet its economic slowdown could see the good times of emerging markets like Brazil and South Africa - which rely heavily on exports of natural resources - end. The lower demand in China has led to a slump in the price of commodities. In the case of South Africa, it grapples with huge social and economic problems.
No doubt many wondered ten years ago, whether BRICS would be a viable alternative to Western economic supremacy. Lacking cultural, economic and political coherences, the five member states - Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa - don't have enough in common. Yet they seem united to defy the neoliberal model of the developped world and to create their own institutions. The author points out that despite the mantra about "solidarity" between them and their "shared goals", they have failed to function as a "counterweight to the West". Outsiders see them more as rivals than allies - China and India have an unresolved border dispute, while China and Russia compete for hegemony in Central Asia etc.
BRICS have also "failed to fulfill their promise of international leadership". Yet China on its own, has long wanted to claim America's role as the world's uncontested hegemon one day. As the world's second largest economy, it has led much of the world into recession in recent months.
Now Ana Palacio urges "the US to rededicate itself to its international responsibilities", claiming "no other single power is in a position to take America’s place". Hence it's imperative that the US secures the current "international order". The GOP presidential candidates echo the same sentiments too!

It is understandable that you have chosen to credit America rather than The Anglosphere.
Reality is that it was Britain that invented the English language - and The Anglosphere is a credit to Britain's genius.
Had German or French Spanish or Italian become America's Language, it is unlikely America would even exist in its current shape.
When Britain had to exit Europe's embrace, it was uncharted territory - until they struck Gold with India.
The strength of Empire was used to incubate The Anglosphere - and English was its currency.
Challenged first by The Spanish Armada, then the Corsican Corporal, next by the Fuehrer and finally by The Red Army, The Anglosphere held.
Western Europe became The Anglosphere's partner only as late as 1945 - and it took only 25 years for DeGaulle to demolish The Dollar Standard.
On 15 August 1971, Presdient Nixon abandoned Dollar convertibility and The Euro was born - it took another 30 years before it left its womb.
BRICS was born out of necessity as those excluded from The Rich Nations Club needed to create an alternative where they counted.
Greece was forced into submission and surrender - neither Britain not Russia ever surrendered because they could create the alternative.
China created the Economics of Growth when Nixon / Kissinger built their Pacific option - when forced by DeGaulle into submission.
BRICS is designed to be a World Pillar of Economics and Growth - thwarting submission and surrender tactics that hegemony brings.
The Anglosphere along with BRICS and Europe perhaps The Trinity that leads to Light for The World - not hubris and darkness.
America was not designed for hegemony - George Washington simply wanted to be a Commissioned Officer in The Royal Navy.
And he ended up being Commander-in-chief : The World always needs one.

Good Article. It was never the intention of the US to lead. This was meant to be the role of the UN Security Council. But this body failed miserably and at the moment, it is in total disarray.
For any international body to replace the US (financially), since it has been established by now that no single country can replace the US, four (4) main ingredients are needed: (1) Trust / Confidence; (2) Stability / Clear policies; (3) Good Governance / Less Politics; (4) Team work. At this point in time, these ingredients are lacking and shall be lacking for quite some time. So in short, there is no substitute to the US for the foreseeable future.

The search for another country to replace the present global power and leadership of America in times of its declining economic and political power is misdirection and definitely a wrong question.we should learn to ask right questions to arrive at right answers.

Now it proved that US in itself has become unequal to the the economic and political challenges posed by the present stage technology driven global markets and political termoils in whatever garbs.still it is the largest economic and military power on this planet as it now exists .Therefore it is still one of indispensible power to face challenges of global turmoils. .its partnership with other countries is indispensable for any global law or order for peace and security of planet and it's life forms. That far is right.

what means to end?

Like precedent roman,persian, British national imperialism? And which perished with time but not extinct.Hitler national socialistic imperialistic ambition and Russian communistic imperialistic garb or imperialism under the guise of exporting changes by forcible regime changes or racial or religious basis are utterly repulsive to the democratising forces of economic and technological globalisation of present era.
Britain lost in swirl pool of globalisation.US has proved unequal to the challenges. World wars were fought for national liberty and equality and a life of dignity on earth.the basis for the fall of UK and rise of US as by product of two WWs are the work of forces of national liberty and equality and dignity of life on earth. They are still sharpening in the face global economic turmoil as a part of natural instinct of survival.

Taming of such political forces and harnessing them for global good and prevention of another planetorial life threatening war is evolve global democratic consensus in already existing UNGA FORUM To simple upgrade the UN to a democratic national federal world government an effective alternative to search for substitution of one dominant national government by another as next global leader for international order which is catastrophically expensive.

vigilance is the price of freedom is an apt quotation. The recent political events and national coalitions in the name of fight for human rights and against terror as well as the proceedings and speeches of dominant players in UNGA , some country referring to third world war like reveals the motives behind their actions.

While the US has certainly demonstrated initiative, the word "disorder" would be a more apt description of our results. We are leaders insofar as we are able to sabotage rival power centers. Some of these are more unscrupulous than our own statesmen. Some should have been allowed to live, like the UN or bodies enforcing a uniform international rule of law.

See also:

In the first year of his presidency, Donald Trump has consistently sold out the blue-collar, socially conservative whites who brought him to power, while pursuing policies to enrich his fellow plutocrats.

Sooner or later, Trump's core supporters will wake up to this fact, so it is worth asking how far he might go to keep them on his side.

A Saudi prince has been revealed to be the buyer of Leonardo da Vinci's "Salvator Mundi," for which he spent $450.3 million. Had he given the money to the poor, as the subject of the painting instructed another rich man, he could have restored eyesight to nine million people, or enabled 13 million families to grow 50% more food.

While many people believe that technological progress and job destruction are accelerating dramatically, there is no evidence of either trend. In reality, total factor productivity, the best summary measure of the pace of technical change, has been stagnating since 2005 in the US and across the advanced-country world.

The Bollywood film Padmavati has inspired heated debate, hysterical threats of violence, and a ban in four states governed by the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party – all before its release. The tolerance that once accompanied India’s remarkable diversity is wearing thin these days.

The Hungarian government has released the results of its "national consultation" on what it calls the "Soros Plan" to flood the country with Muslim migrants and refugees. But no such plan exists, only a taxpayer-funded propaganda campaign to help a corrupt administration deflect attention from its failure to fulfill Hungarians’ aspirations.

French President Emmanuel Macron wants European leaders to appoint a eurozone finance minister as a way to ensure the single currency's long-term viability. But would it work, and, more fundamentally, is it necessary?

The US decision to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel comes in defiance of overwhelming global opposition. The message is clear: the Trump administration is determined to dictate the Israeli version of peace with the Palestinians, rather than to mediate an equitable agreement between the two sides.